yyz28

Let's remember - this is a volunteer's unit. I was a member of the Brigade in the early '90s when we were nursing the old white 80's uniforms with red accents along. After the down-right badass uniforms from my Highschool, these uniforms at the collegiate level were embarrassing. Kids going through the Highschool marching band ranks are being drilled to be as much like the major drum and bugle corps as possible. Freshmen coming to UNT are going to be excited if the band uniform is as nice as if not nicer than the ones they had in Highschool. These accomplish this mission. ...a return to a dated look of the 60's would be a step back in my opinion. Schools like Texas, Ohio State, even Tech get away with the old-school uniforms because they have been consistent. Since our band's uniform has been updated regularly, to suddenly jerk back 4 decades would look really silly. Both of these uniforms look great and the band will look fantastic in both. Regarding the casual uniforms, (T-Shirt and Shorts) I'm with the rest of you. When I was in band, you wore the uniform. You all wore matching Tshirts under your jacket. If it was stifling in the stands, you removed the jacket, but pants and T-shirts created consistency while allowing the members to cool off a bit. ...but when the band is on the field, they should be in uniform.

Son of Worm with Black pants.

Yes. Season Tickets please.

...says the guy who watches soccer.

How 'bout we just stick with Sunbelt? New names don't change what's wrong with something. Lots of people associate UNT with a loser of a program that will never be much of anything. Should we change the name (again) or just work hard at changing the perception?

It's really a dumb move politically for Obama. Insurance or not, women can secure birth control for free or very minimal cost at Planned Parenthood and any number of local sources and clinics. Access to contraception isn't am issue or problem right now, so picking this fight seems a bit odd to me in an election year.

I giggle when I hear people talk about the national polls. Look at the swing state polls. This election will be over by 9CST on election night. Florida & Ohio. Done and done. Whoever wins them, wins. Simple enough. I think Obama is hosed in Florida, so it comes down to one state. Ohio is going to be CLOSE too. Ohio becomes irrelevant if Pennsylvania goes R, but that's a longer shot than Ohio. The state to state polls mean far more this far out and even at the 11th hour than do the national polls. This race is going to be 2000/2004 tight.

2008 spending levels means budget spending, not the war spending over and above. I'm talking about the budgets. The plan to return to 2008 spending discounts the spending on the wars as we're not spending that money today. If you end baseline budgeting, and CUT, not cut the increases which is what baseline does, but CUT the budget 1% each year for 5 years the math actually works just fine with current revenues and current economic growth. If we actually start seeing a recovery, it'll REALLY work out well. You say 1% isn't a drop in the bucket, but we can't even get this administration to agree to it. The argument that the President has offered the biggest cuts since anyone with a caveat is the same as saying he hasn't offered anything. His Caveat will result in LESS Revenue which has been demonstrated by history (and simple arithmetic) over and over and over again. If you cut from a 2008 base, and then cut from there, cutting principal, not cutting the built in increases, the savings comes quickly. Clinton and the Republican congress didn't cut much and had good economic growth, and see what happened there? I absolutely AGREE the Bush didn't do it. You don't read what I post, apparently. I put the lion's share of the blame for where we are now on the Republican Congress and Presidents in the decade of 2000, as they were most certainly NOT conservative when it came to fiscal policy. If you think I'm in here defending Bush's or recent Republican congress' record on fiscal matters, you're not reading what I'm saying. ...but this isn't a party argument. Its an ideas' argument. Bush and the 2000+ Republican congress had the wrong idea. This President and his Democratic congress has doubled down on those ideas. They are all wrong. My argument about Conservative Fiscal Policy stands. The issue is that nobody, including those claiming to be conservatives have followed the basic principals of Conservative Fiscal Policy in decades.

I'd wager students, as it should be...

Do you seriously believe what you type? I wonder. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in 1000 days. The branch of congress that won't pass anything for the President to sign or veto is the democratically controlled senate. The House passes stuff virtually daily in session, bills of all sort, and they all end up in never-never land with Reid running things on the Senate. Debt got out of control because of a TAX CUT?!?! The tax rate doesn't create debt. Spending in excess of our revenue is what causes debt. ...and the debt went up 4.6 Trillion under 8 years of Bush (where we had 9/11 and fought two wars), and has since gone 3.5 trillion in 3 years under Obama, even as we've spent far less on the wars overseas since he took office vs. Bush. Then look at deficits by year and you'll find a MAJOR spike in deficits after the 2006 election, particularly in 2008. Consider the fact that Congress has more to do with spending and you draw your own conclusions. We can fix this problem tomorrow. You want compromise, call leaders of both parties, tell them to return to 2008 spending, eliminate baseline budgeting and cut 1% of spending for the next 5 years. Balanced budget in 5 years with that plan. ...and it's not like we weren't spending a metric sh!t-ton of money in 2008. You're right in saying both parties got us here, but it happened because Bush was not a conservative President, and Congress under Republican control during the 2000's was not in the least bit fiscal conservative - they lost that banner when they chased Newt off of capital hill. ...they have been Democrat lite since, spending like drunken sailors. Time to get serious. We need SOLID CONSERVATIVE RESTRAINED FISCAL POLICY and we need to STOP SPENDING money we don't have. This President certainly won't do it. This Congress is impotent as it's deadlocked, so they can't do it. We need a major overhaul to our fiscal system or its going to be too late.

That's exactly what Guy does on Triple D. He always gives the town name and follows it up with the nearest big city its close to. Would have been nice in this case.

Everyone has a right to make this decision, but I can tell you when it comes to my kids, EVEN IF the dog had been awesome for years, once I had kids, I just wouldn't take the risk. NO PET (and I have pets, love pets) is worth the safety of my kids. We gamble enough in the things we do every day - why add potential risk?

Yes... SE66, I'm not missing your point. I understand your point entirely. ....but you're missing mine. "fairness" aside, raising capital gains taxes on the 1% of the 1% will have the opposite than desired effect. This isn't a question of fairness OR mathematics. It's a question of "will doing X produce the outcome we want?". History alone, the fairness argument set aside, that the answer is CLEARLY no. ...but again, despite the fact that part of the upper 1% is paying more in taxes, they are actively earning that income. When the guys paying 15% on their capital gains today EARNED the money they are now parlaying into capital gains, they paid the same tax rate on that income when it was earned from employment as the guys making it now. Since employment and capital gains ARE separate actions, and, moreover, one has to earn it before they can invest it, it stands to reason capital gains rate would be different than the typical income tax rate. What i find MOST interesting, however, is that the President is arguing that we should raise taxes on the capital gains crowd, AND raise taxes on the rest of the 1% (more likely 10%), so under his scenario, everyone will have less to spend on stuff or to re-invest in business in the pursuit of more capital gains which is the REAL engine of the economy and the real engine of job creation. It's an anti-growth policy that not only really does nothing to solve the fiscal issue we have, but rather likely puts the breaks on an economy that is currently anemic at best.

There would be some unintended consequences, and while loss carry forward and write-offs should continue to exist, so long as we're going to have a corporate income tax (which is really just a hidden tax on consumers) the tax rate should be lowered, flat, loopholes and tax benefits eliminated, subsidies eliminated and allow companies to win and lose based on the free market, not based on getting some benefit in the tax code over a competing company or product. You make this change to the corporate tax code and then stand back and watch business come back to America and the economy start to move.

Then again, I ask the question that I've never had anyone who has your position ever be able (or willing) to answer: HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? If the top 1% is earning 16.7% of the income (and that figure INCLUDES Capital Gains) and is paying 40% of the tax burden, how can you argue they aren't paying their fair share? And if 40% isn't enough, how much should the top 1% be funding the government? 45%? 50%? When does it stop? How much wealth do we confiscate before we say "it's fair?" History is an interesting teacher. Simply stated, we can get mad and bluster about what is fair and what isn't, but if it doesn't work in the end, then what really is the point? First, history shows us without exception, doubt or deviation that an increase in the Capital Gains tax means less movement in the market. Less movement in the market means less money circulating, means less growth, fewer transactions to apply the higher tax rate etc. The recent history on what the manipulation of Capital gains taxes means for REVENUE, which is really what we are being told this is about is rather clear. In 1987, the maximum capital gains tax went form 20% to 27%, jumping by 7 points or 25%. The following year, income into the treasury from capital gains was down 37.5%. ...so a 25% increase in the tax rate created a 37.5% drop in revenue. in 2002, as a result of the 2001 tax cuts, the Capital Gains rate was lowered from 19% to 15%. This was only a 4 point decrease, roughly 20%. In 2003, revenue from Capital Gains taxes INCREASED by 30% after a fairly modest decrease in the rate. So, history teaches us if we're smart enough to pay attention that an increase in the rate will have the opposite impact on revenue that we're trying to achieve with the move. I know this. Economists know this. Obama's advisers know this. ...if that is the case, then why promote it? is it REALLY about increasing the revenue, or is the motivation of a different sort? I'll let you come to your own conclusion on that... ...if we're just talking about the top 1% of the top 1% (the "wall street guys") go back and review the math. Confiscating ALL their wealth will barely make a dent in the problem, and will cause the problem to get worse next year when they aren't there to hit up again. ...and where to cut spending? OH, my friend, I thought you'd NEVER ask. First, de-unionize the federal workforce. The market will dictate what a job is worth, and the federal government will live by the same labor laws they impose on anyone else. Those who do well get promoted and moved up. Those that do the bare minimum tread water. Those who don't do their job are fired. No committee. No Union. A real workplace environment like the rest of us "regular people" have to deal with. (I find the fact that federal employees are making the kind of money they are compared to similar worker in the private sector FAR more unfair and unjust since we're footing the bill as tax payers than I do about Wall Street Playboys who are risking their OWN MONEY for those capital gains.) Second, Elected official's of ALL PARTIES AND BRANCHES have their golden pension plans and medical plans struck down, they live with what we live with. Third, eliminate the practice of baseline budgeting, and roll back all departments to 2008 spending levels except for defense who's expenditures should be considerably less than 2008 based on being out of Iraq and a smaller role in Afghanistan. Department of Energy. Gone. Department of Education (since its inception education outcome in this country has dropped or stayed stagnate at best). Gone. EPA. Gutted, Reformed, Powers dramatically curtailed. Foreign Aide. Gone. ANY Government Service for someone not legally in this country... GONE! Obamacare. Gone Overhaul Medicare. Overhaul Social Security (Yes, Including making provisions to keep young workers today to be a slave to a system that has been lied about and stolen from since its inception. We then setup a new department - Department of Waste Mitigation (most successful companies have departments like this that are looking for places they are overlapping responsibility, can run more efficiently, where they haven't billed something, where they have been charged too much be a vendor, etc..): Their sole purpose in life is to find where congress has created overlapping bureaucracies and by extension regulation and clean it out piece by piece. Private sector regulatory compliance costs amounted to $1.752 TRILLION in 2008 absorbing 11.9% of the GDP simply for business to comply with the volumes and volumes of regulations placed on the private sector. Moreover, studies have found that the number of criminal offenses in the United States Code increased from 3000 in the early 1980's, to 4000 by 2000, to over 4500 by 2008. ...but the total number of criminal offenses is actually unknown even to the federal government which establishes them. Scores of federal departments and agencies have created so many criminal offenses that the Congressional Research Service (CRS, the Research Arm of Congress) admitted that it was unable to count all the offenses, but estimates them to be in the "tens of thousands". Congress's own experts do not have a clear understand gin of the size and scope of federal government or criminalization. ...if you don't think there are places to cut, I challenge you to walk around your house and find a single item that isn't in some way regulated by the federal government. Now think about the number of people who are on the taxpayer's payroll to enforce these regulations, and come back in here and tell me we can't cut. Bottom line is even if gutting the government does create temporary unemployment to spike, it simply can't be sustained. Do it now, and experience pain. Don't do it and the system collapses. That's where we are now.

Dream Theater - A Dramatic Turn of Events Steven Wilson - Grace For Drowning Primus - Green Naugahyde RHCP - I'm with You Foo Fighters - Wasting Light Cake - Showroom of Compassion Don't know if I have 10 full albums. Some good music this year, but I can't tell you the last time I really consumed music in the form of "albums".

Some really good stuff in this thread despite the fact it sort of defended into a pissing contest. The job market is a tough place right now. I know because I happen to be fortunate (not lucky, mind you as I've busted my hump to be where I am today) to be hiring for some of the entry level positions within my company. ...and what we're getting is over-qualified folks who are going to keep looking and be gone by the time we have them trained or people with no experience what-so-ever. The happy medium we're looking for isn't there. ...over the past 20 years, our education system has done a major dis-service to our society. SO MUCH of the focus has been "get everyone into college" that the skilled labor force, be it training people for trades, preparing them for an IT career, etc is being all but ignored. As a result we have people going into college and then everyone else jumping into the work force and building up their resume. ...often times, particularly in the entry or mid level jobs by the time the average kid gets out of college, he's now competing with someone that has 4-5 years of experience. As the world becomes more competitive, companies are willing to pass on the degree to get someone who has time in the real world. ...finally, you add onto this jobs in this country being done by folks who aren't here legally, and a system that dis-incents folks with little to no skills from working (you make too much for state sponsored medical coverage, welfare is better than a minimum wage job) and you have a labor force in crisis. I don't agree that this is happening because the wealthy are hanging onto all the capital. in the 90's when the economy was riding high and everyone was pretty happy and folks coming out of college (at least out of the business school) were pulling down 40-60 without really even trying, the amount of "wealth" held by the wealthy wasn't much different.

Totally agree. Florida is a different animal. ...though really, in some ways a Newt win here may help combat some of this "Newt Can't Win" conventional wisdom. Florida is way more representative of the entire nation with a LOT of different demographics represented. How Florida plays out will be transfere interesting and will tell us more about how this is going to go than any of the previous primaries in my opinion. Biggest problem Newt has in turning Florida to him despite what the polls say is the fact that Florida has early voting in their primary with heavy turn out and lots of people cast their ballots long before the current Newt surge.

Gingrich is an interesting situation. I don't buy into the "if he's nominated, Obama wins, no contest" type of statements I've seen made here and in other places. ...partially because people think they know Newt, but then pay attention and he has had success changing minds when people have actually engaged and started paying attention. He has a couple of debates with "ugh, er, where's my Teleprompter Obama" and I think lots of folks may come around. ...that being said, the election instead of being about Obama, are you better off, has his policies worked for you becomes about Newt as well. While my gut REALLY wants to see Newt clean Obama's Clock on the debate stage, I am just nervous that he has too many negatives going in. Romney is sort of Milquetoast in many ways, but if he makes a good Veep pick, I think he'll get the conservatives on his side and would have an easier run to victory. As Civics class taught us, the ONLY time the VP has any power in the senate is when there is a tie. The statement that "Gore was in charge of the senate" is just purely false. After the election of 94, some party defections and some retirement and replacement of a senator from Washington, the final tally was a 53 seat majority for Republicans in 94, a number that increased in 96. The Senate Majority leader Bob Dole, not the Vice President was (and really always is unless the tie breaking vote is needed) in control of the Senate after the election of 1994. Clinton did after '94 EXACTLY what Obama hasn't done after '10 which was moderate, listen to what the people said with the election and work with Republicans. As a result, he got a good deal of social policy he wanted, but became a virtual rubber stamp for good conservative fiscal policy. I give Bill Clinton a LOT of credit. he knew what he needed to do to stay relevant and in power and as a result is viewed (probably rightfully so) as a good president by most, even those who were not a big fan of his, shall we say, extracurricular activities. Obama is going to have a hard time painting Romney as a Rich guy. Obamas worth a hell of a lot of money himself, and he sure isn't writing extra checks to the treasury either. ...in fact, i think the class warfare argument is really starting to backfire on Obama. We're not maintaining a decent Government. We have a government who has its hands in so much stuff that it doesn't have authority to be in the middle of it isn't funny. I agree, the government needs income, but the idea that tax cuts have created debt is such an intellectually devoid concept that I can't see straight. That you or anyone would take seriously something that states "tax cuts caused 40% of the debt" is beyond my ability to comprehend. Not having money DOESN'T CAUSE DEBT! SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE CAUSES DEBT!!!!! We can argue all day long about what is wise or wasteful spending, but it is spending, not tax cuts that create debt. You don't accumulate debt simply by getting paid less. You accumulate it by whipping out that credit card and using it when you don't have the funds. Regarding pushing the Rich to pay more taxes, and those of you who support this, I have only one question - how much is enough? The rich aren't being soaked, according to you. How much SHOULD they pay to be considered their fair share? When answering this, consider the following - The top 1% of the population earns 16.7% of the income in this country, and pays 39% of the tax burden. The top 5% of the population earns 31.2% of the income in this country, and pays 55% of the tax burden. The top 10% of the population earns 42.36% of the income in this country, and pays 66% of the tax burden. The top 25% of the population earns 64.86% of the income in this country, and pays 86% of the tax burden. The top 50% of the population earns 86.01% of the income in this country, and pays 97% of the tax burden. The bottom 50% of the population pays 3% of the tax burden. ...so the "SUPER-RICH" which are being targeted. let's call 'em the top 10%... already pay 66% of the TOTAL tax burden. How much of the total burden should they be responsible for? How much of their income should be taxed? What would the United States gain if in fact the government did confiscate the wealth of the so-called rich and taxed at 100% all the income above $200,000.00 per household per year? Using the latest statistics from the IRS, in 2004 there were 2.7 million adults with a net worth above $1.5 million. If the government were to seize all the wealth above the $1.5 million threshold, Washington would realize a one-time windfall of $4.0 Trillion -- and no one would again attempt to accumulate that type of wealth again as it would simply be confiscated. Why do the extra work to earn more if you're never going to see it? Assuming it was applied to the national debt (unlikely with this Government, as it would be spent, but I digress) the national debt would only be reduced from$14.5 Trillion to $10.0 Trillion. Assuming Barak Obama & Company decide that $200,000.00 per year is sufficient for any household, then in 2008 (the latest IRS statistics) the 6.9 million filers that had adjusted gross income above $200,000.00 would have forfeited all their income above that ceiling to the government. The one-time gain to Washington D.C.: $221.0 Billion; but in the future no one would work long enough to earn more than $200,000.00 per year for the same reason the millionaires stop working harder... Tax revenues in subsequent years would never increase unless tax rates are raised which are self-defeating and historically results in even lower tax receipts. The long-term impact on the economy and the country would mirror that of the failed socialist nations throughout history.

This x 10.

Being someone in the hotel business, I can tell you I'm pulling hard for one Flag over the other.

I've felt this way for a long time. The belt has been SO MUCH MORE STABLE- I've felt the best thing we could have done was to dismantle the WAC to create a western division.

Jump Around was great! Even the other team's players were doing it... LOL! ...god forbid we do something that's fun...

Yes, on that we agree totally... Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance.

One person's opinion isn't an issue... Don't worry folks. We're in as good a position we can be to strike at the right opportunity... Good things ahead.